‘Boss bill’ would prevent discrimination based on reproductive health

A new bill that backers say would plug a loophole in existing labor laws was announced on Wednesday to make sure employers don’t deny employees birth control coverage under insurance plans.

Introduced by Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, and Assemblywoman Ellen Jaffee, D-Suffern, the measure would ban employers from discriminating against employees based on their reproductive health choices.

“No boss hsould be able to tell employees whether they can have access to birth control,” said Krueger. She said the bill is necessary because of a “proliferation” of more than 100 federal lawsuits by employers seeking to limit birth control coverage benefits that should be available under the Affordable Care Act.

Magpies, depending on the facts of your case, you may have a discrimination case. You should consult a lawyer asap.

Also wanted to thank the Senator for bringing this bill to the floor. It’s so sad that the pro-life movement is trying to distort the first amd’s “Religious freedom” guarantee to abuse the rights of others. Stupidly, they also dilute the meaning of religious freedom in the process.

@ Jessaica, so the gov’t can tell a school they cannot allow prayer because of the separation of church and state and you cannot display the ten commandments in public buildings for the same reason. Yet the gov’t can tell private religious organizations that it must pay for something (contraception) that goes against its teachings? Seems to me that the religious institutions’ rights are being abused.

If you work for a religious organization and don’t like the fact that they won’t cover your birth control go work some place else or pay out of pocket.

Religion doesn’t belong in government and government doesn’t belong in religion.

K2 the laws have never applied to religious non-profits staffed primarily by members of the faith ( churches, missions, … ) . Non-profits that affiliated with religious organizations and staffed by the public are not exempt ( aid organizations, hospitals ) or companies with “strong beliefs” ( hobby lobby ) and nor should they be. They have to follow all the pesky anti-discrimination laws that other businesses have to follow as well.

Don’t worry though, your precious church can still willfully discriminate all it wishes, that’s protected.

The “more than 100 federal lawsuits” cited by Sen. Krueger will most likely be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe if the rulings uphold the religious liberties of private employers, those rulings will trump the good senator’s unnecessary proposed legislation.

Eric, we are unfortunately getting to a point where “rights” and “discrimination” are being turned on their heads. Whence the “right” of free contraception of your choice? Simple legislation. Simple legislation has often been overturned or amended if it unreasonably iterferes with others’ important rights, those guaranteed under the Constitution.

If a business owner has a legitimate religious objection (necessarily a factual inquiry), is the ACA narrowly drawn to accommodate it?

The notion that an employer not paying for birth control as part of an insurance plan is “discrimination” belittles the struggles of people who have had to endure actual discrimination. Sandra Fluke is the new Rosa Parks?
–
The new rallying cry of the liberal – Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death!

The government does not have the right to tell an employer what they must pay for — this is another attempt at the government to control organizations and people.
They forget about religious belief/freedoms?
Is she not aware of the Little Sisters of the Poor lawsuit that is about this issue?
People cannot take care of their personal responsibility?
Other than those friends of Andy who get into the tax free business zone, who would want to start a business here or keep one here.

Ladies you go to work for a company and you agree on the benefits. If the employer does not want to cover your “CHOICE” for birth control then you should not be entitled to it. Time to clean sweep these politicians out the door and vote in people that will focus on the real issues.

Senator Krueger annual attack on faithful Catholic, Evangelicals, and Jews who reject the idea that unborn babies can be murdered on a whim. She now want employers to be compelled to pay for abortions or abortion medications regardless of their religious convictions.
This is far left Big Brother at work……..who is running against her…where can I send my money……primary or general elections opponents please. ABK

Senator Krueger’s annual attack on faithful Catholics, Evangelicals, and Jews who reject the idea that unborn babies can be murdered on a whim. She now wants employers to be compelled to pay for abortions or abortion medications regardless of their religious convictions.
This is far left Big Brother at work……..who is running against her…where can I send my money……primary or general elections opponents please. ABK

Isn’t it interesting that the same people who object to health insurance coverage for birth control also complain that they don’t want to pay for social services to assist when the “wrong” people have babies they can’t afford. You really can’t have it both ways.

The government should provide the coverage, if they feel it should be available to all who choose the option of birth control. Personally, although it is a personal choice. Without it how many unwanted children would be born? It is not an inexpensive event, and it lasts for life. But I feel that once those on public assistance have 2 or 3 children, the taxpayers should not pay anymore, for more children, so the monthly stipend is increased. They should be sat down and educated in their birth control options. It is time to end a program that rewards some for having children they probably don’t actually want, and will quite likely be neglected, ignored and/or abused, or any combination thereof. The government program could be based on need and income, but I think it is long overdue.